DISRESPECT TO COURTSIt is unethical for a lawyer, who is brought before
a J.P. in another State and who is charged with speeding, to give the J.P. a check for his
fine and then place a "stop payment" on the check.

A Texas attorney travelling in another State received a traffic citation for speeding
late in the evening and was requesting to appear immediately before a Justice of the
Peace, which he did. The Justice of the Peace gave the attorney three alternatives on the
speeding ticket, i.e.: (1) A plea of guilty, at which time the Judge would set his fine;
(2) a plea of not guilty, at which the Court would, at his request, grant an immediate
trial and have the summoning officer appear to testify; (3) accept a plea of not guilty,
take a bond from the attorney, set the matter for trial before a jury, if such pleased the
attorney. The attorney, feeling that the situation was unfair, due to the distance from
his home, that he was innocent of the charge of speeding, and believing that the Justice
of the Peace and the traffic officer were working in collusion to create a so-called
"speed trap," decided to plead guilty, let the Judge set his fine, give the
Judge a check for the amount of the fine, and upon return to his home, place a "stop
payment" on the check. The attorney did this, and a grievance was filed against him
by the Justice of the Peace.

Opinion

In the opinion of the committee, the attorneys conduct as stated would violate Canon 1, 19 and 29. However, the proper Grievance Committee, and not this
committee, should determine the facts and the intent of the attorney. This
committees function is limited to interpretation of the Canons based on hypothetical
fact situations, and it does not purport to decide specific fact issues or the guilt or
innocence of any attorney. (8-0.)